What makes a great composer? That might be an unanswerable question and to
even attempt it may be folly.
The question is not addressed in terms of a
famous composer. Famous means known to very many; it does not
imply greatness; indeed greatness and fame are not synonymous.
I suggest that a great composer is one who has written several
great compositions and the majority of the rest of his output is generally
consistently good. That being so, what constitutes a great piece of music,
a masterpiece? Is it not something written by a great composer and not
necessarily by a famous one? Many owe their fame to historical significance
being men who appeared at certain times in history and who were the first
to achieve for their respective countries the status of a national figure
... for example, Grieg in Norway and Sibelius in Finland. I would
suggest that a great piece of music contains the following
attributes, some of which will overlap:
1. Originality. A great piece of music must not be imitative
but first-hand, new in character and design. It will be inventive, creative
and not a copy of anything that has gone before. Neither will it be plagiarism.
It will be innovative and neither superficial nor academic.
It also follows that a composer's œuvre is progressive - that is to
say constantly developing. If his work shows little or no change throughout
his creative span his music will become merely predictable and lack originality.
2. Worthiness. The music must have purpose, substance and
subsequent emotive or intellectual appeal. It will have a value and give
a rewarding return possessing obvious merit deserving respect and, hopefully,
receiving it. By contrast, worthless music has neither purpose nor value;
it will be substandard or merely 'average' or pleasant.
A great work has substance which speaks of its value; it will be deep and
penetrating with a depth of feeling and character. It will be superlative
and not superficial.
3. Emotive and Intellectual. The originality and worthiness
of the piece will bring about an emotive and/or an intellectual response.
Bland, boring, sentimental and predictable music will produce responses such
as tedium or frustration. The reaction of the intellect does not intend to
suggest qualifications held, or upbringing enjoyed, but the mind's prudent
use of reasoning and knowledge which arrives at what is called 'taste' or
appreciation. Great music has the power to arouse intense and constructive
feelings but if it is only emotional that response may be short-lived. A
genuine response is a lasting one. Emotive reaction without intellect is
not enough.
4. Inspiration. A great composition must, therefore, inspire
and continue to do so. Of course, in the first place, the composer must be
stimulated to be both creative and original and in such a way that his music
is worthy. The listener, on the other hand, must be convinced with the certainty
of the evident qualities that it is outstanding. Inspired music is neither
mechanical nor academic.
5. Craftsmanship and Technique. A composer must know how to
compose and achieve what he wants to write. Composition is an occupation
demanding the highest levels of skill. The work must be competent, structurally
logical, harmonically interesting and polished. It must be written well for
the medium yet if it is merely academic (by which is meant regimented to
archaic text books or theoretical correctness) it cannot be great music.
6. Durability. A great piece will last and not wear out with
repeated hearings and will continue to give the profound satisfaction its
greatness proves and also continuing to reveal more of its detail.
7. Coherence. The work must make sense having direction, form
and, of course, something definite and worthwhile to say. It must connect
logically and not ramble. In other words it will not 'stop and start'. It
will not be episodic suffering from such stutterings. That would relegate
the music to being merely incidental and of little moment. If, for example,
a movement is marked allegro it is to be fast
and lively, full of life and
energy, vigorous and cheerful,
full of action. If it is not, the music is hardly coherent. If a movement
is called a scherzo one expects the music to be humorous.
8. Contrast. All great music has contrast within it. By contrast
I do not mean changes of tempo within a movement, but a variety of tone and
colour and/or diverse themes clearly stated and musically argued. A long
piece of slow, uneventful music will be tedious because of a lack of contrast.
9. Length. Music that is too long will lose its effectiveness,
if it has any, as will music that is too repetitious, over-blown, overstated
or long-winded. It will be irksome and, therefore, not great music. Long-winded
is defined as of tedious length; overstated refers to exaggeration; over-blown
indicates 'too open' or 'too much' being overdone, excessive and consequently
tiresome.
10. Content. Great music must have memorable content but that
does not necessarily mean a melody or tune instantly recalled to mind; it
may be moments of magical orchestration, unexpected and effective modulations
or an overall impression even though specific detail may not be remembered.
It follows that popular and well-loved music is not necessarily great music.
Some may enjoy Johann Strauss's Blue Danube Waltz but it is not great
music. By contrast Stravinsky's Rite of Spring fulfils all our stated
qualities of greatness yet there are those who do not appreciate this
masterpiece. Personal taste is not the criterion for greatness. Much as I
enjoy the music of Haydn, it will have to be admitted that some of his music
is predictable and not strikingly original. Yet he is described as a great
composer whereas famous composer is probably a more apt designation. Yet
he may still be able to claim an original style in that he added a personal
aura of drama to some of his music which Beethoven was to further extend.
Let us consider Dvorák's Cello Concerto in B minor. It is original
insomuch that it is probably the first substantial romantic concerto for
this instrument. It is worthy music able to yield both an emotive and
intellectual response; it was inspired, as far as we can say, and the listener
can admire its evident qualities; the craftsmanship is impeccable; the work
survives repeated hearings; it is coherent and has good contrast; its length
is probably about right and its content is memorable. On the basis of our
definition it is a great work.
Take another work in B minor namely Schubert's Unfinished Symphony.
What is original about it? Is its content too repetitive or derivative? Is
it coherent?
Listen to Borodin's Symphony No 2, also in B minor, and ask yourself
whether the main theme outstays its welcome. Is this also true of Franck's
Symphony in D minor?
Pass on the Beethoven's Piano Concerto No 4 in G. Its opening was
original for its day but, at times, is the work predictable? Does it occasionally
lose its way? It may have moments of inspiration and perhaps fulfils our
ten ingredients for greatness although not everyone cares for this piece
proving again that neither personal opinion nor the general consensus of
belief is evidence of a great composition. Yet those who love this work may
be offended at any criticism of it. Whether a piece is great or not should
not lead its devotees to feel put down if someone cannot agree with their
appreciation. And if it is proved that a favourite piece is poor, lovers
of that work should not become bellicose.
Ponder the case of Chopin. To some he is considered a great composer yet
I would suggest that he is a famous composer and that fame
is based exclusively on his piano works. When it came to orchestration he
was sadly lacking. That is not intended to castigate Chopin; there are some
fine moments in his work including the slow movement of his Piano Concerto
No 2 in F minor but it is a pity about the orchestral parts. Famous yes;
a great composer? Hardly.
Bach is accepted as a great composer and to suggest otherwise would be deemed
sacrilege. Which of his works is really original? What musical content can
clearly be shown to be his own innovation? Was he not trammelled by the fashions
of the day when music was strait-jacketed to strict harmony and counterpoint,
predictability and expected ornamentation? His music is very competent and
clever; the craftsmanship perfect but one wonders about its direction or
of anything new or definite it has to say. Of all the composers with whom
I spoke most of them say that whilst Bach was very able he was also very
able to bore! If we compare Bach with Stravinsky it has to be said that
Stravinsky was both far more original and versatile. For example, Bach wrote
no opera. Stravinsky did.
As Bach, Haydn and Mozart mass-produced music it follows that it is not all
of the same quality. Yet I would encourage the examination of the case of
Mozart. Unlike Bach and Haydn, his music stands out with an originality of
charm and spontaneity seen in his best work coupled with a unique, mercurial
elegance. Mendelssohn may or may not be a great composer yet his music often
has charm and elegance as does that of Mozart. His music, however, knows
little of passion. About 200 years before Mozart was born, Monteverdi was
born in Cremona. He was a great composer yet I do not respond to his work.
His music was undoubtedly original; it has purpose and worth; I respond
intellectually if not emotionally; his music is often clearly inspired and
has evident qualities; the craftsmanship is second to none; while its durability
may not appeal to me his music will continue to give satisfaction. His music
may not have sufficient contrast and coherence and perhaps his long-scale
works are too long.
Schubert is elevated to a prominent place among composers. That he is famous
is not in question. What Chopin was to do for piano Schubert did for the
song and some of his songs have a gem-like perfection. But is he a great
composer? What is strikingly original about any of his work? Pleasant music
it may be but his extended works are probably too long and the material is
too derivative to sustain freshness. This is the majority verdict among senior
professional musicians.
Coming to British composers, one has to say that Vaughan Williams often fulfils
our list of attributes of greatness in music. His choral music has a sublimely
original modal and mystical flavour unlike anybody else's. His symphonies
are all different from each other which gives credence to the view that a
great composer is constantly developing. He said of his Symphony No 4
in F minor, "If this is modern music I don't know whether I like it."
I do and I believe it contains all the ingredients of greatness.
William Walton was a great composer. Facade, Belshazzars Feast,
the Violin Concerto and the Symphony No 1 In B flat minor are
prime examples of what we are saying. Whether you like these pieces or not,
any personal distaste or even prejudice is a flimsy defence against what
is obvious. It is my view, and that of others, that Walton's Cello
Concerto is the best of all British cello concertos. Sir Arthur Bliss
wrote some very fine music but we may be hard pressed to prove any of it
as great music yet his Piano Concerto is probably the most splendid
British piano concerto in the tonal tradition.
A famous composer or a national figure is not necessarily a great composer.
Consider Grieg. He is Norway's most famous composer. But what of his works
are genuinely great and possess all the attributes we have set out? Peer
Gynt is enjoyable and the Piano Concerto is deservedly popular.
Yet it is not original as it is clearly modelled on the Schumann
Concerto from 23 years earlier. Greig's fame is due to his contribution
to his nationalistic idiom which was the first major Norwegian voice.
Occasionally the emotive quality of his music is superlative as in the
Elegiac Melodies Op 34. His greatness is historical.
What Grieg is to Norway, Sibelius is to Finland. Yet again, this is due to
his being the first composer of importance in his country. Some of his music
is original in a very personal way but may lack the other features essential
for greatness. We cannot examine all his works so I select the Symphony
No 3 in C. The outer movements have the designation of Allegro,
although in a modified designation, yet it cannot be said that either of
these are fast, lively, full of life, energy and action being vigorous and
cheerful. The material in all three movements of the Sibelius is repetitious
which some may say makes the work memorable; perhaps, however, each movement
loses its way. The finale uses little material and excessively, it may have
what some consider a noble sound, others may think it approaches pomposity
replete with a showy dignity in an attempt to impress and an obvious
self-importance, a disturbing trait found in Elgar. Much as I enjoy the finale
of Sibelius's Symphony No 2 in D, is that possibly long-winded and
overstated as well? The symphonies of Bruckner and Mahler are huge; are they
not like Wagner operas having great moments and long half-hours? Mahler may
be more exhilarating; Bruckner is the more polished and occasionally is on
a spiritual level unsurpassed in orchestral music as, for example, the slow
movement of his Symphony No 8 in C minor. Bruckner's music is of greater
spiritual beauty and grandeur although Mahler's may be more thrilling but
Mahler sometimes falls into being ordinary and unrefined conjuring up the
vulgarity of German Beer Cellars, and yet with the opening movement of his
Symphony No 8 in E flat he came near to a resplendent magnificent
utterance.
Think about the case of the German composer Max Reger. He was original developing
complex harmonic procedures and, in fact, he was persecuted as a subversive
because of the originality of his work. Like Bach, he was a master of polyphony.
Some of his music has evident worth. Those who understand music will admit
to the intellectual qualities of his best work. His craftsmanship cannot
be faulted but is his music durable? Is it sometimes arid and full of notes,
a criticism which has also been levelled at Bach. Reger's music has coherence
and contrast; he usually achieved the correct length but, often, the content
may not always have been memorable. His contribution to chamber music is
noteworthy. His Piano Concerto and, even more so, the monumental
Violin Concerto are fine works. Is he a great composer? He is probably
overshadowed by his fellow countryman, Brahms, who also began his career
seemingly unimportant in the wake of another famous German composer, Beethoven,
who was historically important in that he revolutionised musical form and
imbued it with a dramatic power. He was the father of romanticism. His style
became original but did he compose any masterpieces? The Erocia Symphony
is a probable candidate but is its slow movement too long and does not the
finale stop and start and fail to be a unified whole? The Choral
Symphony is, at times, magnificent but does the finale suffer in the
same way as its counterpart in the Erocia? The late string quartets
may be splendid human documents but are they too self-indulgent to be great?
Beethoven was not particularly versatile in writing for the voice. What are
his masterpieces? The Symphony No 7 in A is a probability yet, if
all the repeats of the scherzo and trio are played this movement may be too
long. The Piano Concerto No 5 in E flat approaches perfection with
the Piano Concerto No 3 in C minor a close second yet is there anything
strikingly original in the content? The Violin Sonata in A, Op 47
Kreutzer is truly splendid and original for its time.
So who then is a great composer? Are the ten ingredients such that they cancel
out the definition of greatness that others may give? What is clear is that
greatness is a rare thing, far far rarer than we may have,
at first, realised and that, therefore, great composers are very few indeed
... and some famous names are not great composers.
© Copyright - David C F Wright, 1988.
Return to